If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Series resistor for horn driver

I'm using TD-2002 drivers in DIY speakers using an active crossover. They were connected directly to the horn amp, but I noticed that the horn seemed to "stick out" a little at times, especially when reproducing female vocals. I tried a small series resistor from the amp to the horn drivers, and with about 2.7 ohms that fixed the problem. I'm happy that the solution was so easy and inexpensive, but I would like to understand the theory. My guess is that I'm "tuning" the decay time (waterfall) of the horn drivers to better match the woofers in the crossover region.

By adding a series resistor to the horn driver, you simply dropped the level of the horn driver - same as if you turned it down from your active crossover or the gain control on your amplifier. A resistor by itself has no time component.

That the internet contains a blog documenting your life does not constitute proof that your existence is valid. Sorry.

By adding a series resistor to the horn driver, you simply dropped the level of the horn driver - same as if you turned it down from your active crossover or the gain control on your amplifier. A resistor by itself has no time component.

Instead of a series resistor, how about trying a 20 ohm resistor in parallel with the driver like JBL does it?

I added an 18 ohm resistor directly across the driver, just so the amplifier doesn't see such a widely varying impedance over frequency. Other than having to change my series resistor value to get the same Thevenin impedance seen at the driver, I didn't notice much change from that addition, but it makes me feel better

I'm using TD-2002 drivers in DIY speakers using an active crossover. They were connected directly to the horn amp, but I noticed that the horn seemed to "stick out" a little at times, especially when reproducing female vocals. I tried a small series resistor from the amp to the horn drivers, and with about 2.7 ohms that fixed the problem. I'm happy that the solution was so easy and inexpensive, but I would like to understand the theory. My guess is that I'm "tuning" the decay time (waterfall) of the horn drivers to better match the woofers in the crossover region.

- I'm aware of the opinions ( typically offered up ) over at DIY ( & H.E. ) of the necessity of adding a series resistor to TAD drivers ( when bi-amping ) .

- FWIW, IME it is desirable ( when biamping ) to do most level matching( & EQing ) in the passive domain . Doing so, helps assure ( that dynamically ) the separate components will play as one ( ie; work, in a much more coherent fashion ) . That circuit resistance alters system dynamics is far from universally accepted ( oddly enough ).

- A (very) primitive formula that I use to index transducers ( according to their "dynamics potential" ) is ;

DPI = ( BL2 / Re ) / ( Sd / Mms ) x .5

where;Sd is in sq inchesMms is in grams .5 is simply an arbitrary constant added into the formula to keep the derived numbers under 100

( for example ; a 2235H is @ 32 while a 2226 sits around 51 and a 2220H comes in at @ 88 )

- Once one gets used to using this formula , one may start to understand how a transducers dynamic behavior is impacted by something as simplistic as resistance ( hence this answer to your question ) .

- So simply put ( IMHO ) , level matching ( & EQing ) a 110 db efficient horn-driver combo to a 95 db woofer should be done passively ( even when bia-amping ) if one wants to rebalance the dynamics of the components being used .

- So simply put ( IMHO ) , level matching ( & EQing ) a 110 db efficient horn-driver combo to a 95 db woofer should be done passively ( even when bia-amping ) if one wants to rebalance the dynamics of the components being used .

That Throws overboard the biggest bennefit of active filtering IMO...
I made an all passive version of the 4355 filter, sounded great, but to check where it realy ended up I went back to a full active version, same components, night and day difference, more dynamic, cleaner less constraint.
So for now I prefer the methode of using a way bigger amp on the lowest eff driver, most of the time the low unit, in my case a 2235. Second option, using the volume controls on the amps.
But im very well aware of the difficulties to get a horn matched properly to a cone driver , and it might be the reason I go back from a 2352 horn to and exponential version so I dont need any more passive stuff in front of it to correct it